Bigj66
-
Posts
3,373 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
26
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by Bigj66
-
-
1 hour ago, missingsid said:
After tralling through thousands of pics on my laptop and going back 13 years of posts I have finally found my pics for RRC coiler axles under a Series 2 body!!
Here are the pics of mine with 8 spoke and 3 RRC Steel wheels which gives a good comparision.
The eyebrows are not LR but the body line shows where the wheels are in comparision.
RR Classic Steel wheel and 7.50 SAT
8 Spoke and 7.50 Xtra Grip copy
7.50 SAT om banded Series wheels.
So if you stay away from aftermarket wheels a 7.50 is borderline without ayebrows.
Cheers but coil axels are not an option for me whether I wanted to or not.
-
1 hour ago, Bowie69 said:
Here you go:
Do they still have the same wheel stud pattern as a series? Doesn’t mention anything in that thread.
-
15 minutes ago, lo-fi said:
On a purely practical note: be mindful of the points system. You've already lost points on steering, gearbox, engine and brakes. Swapping only 1 axle is still another two points lost, leaving only chassis and suspension. Not lecturing, just a quiet reminder.
Also: it would be easier to fit leaf springs and inset rad panel to a 90. Just as food for thought...
Absolutely and another reason to retain my existing axles although brakes do not count towards the points system.
-
Just now, Bowie69 said:
Here you go:
Cheers, I’ll have a read through that over a coffee 👍
-
Ok, I’m just putting this out there for discussion.
If you were to fit a full coil axle, then why not one off a later Disco 2 without the swivel housing?
-
All very valid points Nick and I don’t disagree with any of them.
In reality, whenever we deviate from standard there will always be additional work required, costs to factor in and safety and engineering challenges to overcome. For me this is the fun part of owning a Landrover and learning new skills as I go, it’s part of the experience. I remember at the start of my build some folk saying I won’t be able to fit a V8 auto into a SWB because of propshafts etc but at the moment, it’s looking that I just might have found the way 🤞.
Yes, buying an off the shelf kit would be simple as would fitting the complete coil axles. I first did that over 30 years ago and that very same Landrover turned up on FB a couple of weeks ago alive and well with those very same axles so we can agree on the longevity of such a conversion.
And all these conversions come with their own particular compromises be it performance or aesthetics. For me personally, the width of the coil axles on a series is a compromise too far for how I want my truck to look but I accept that from the engineering point of view, it delivers on all counts.
I now see that there is an opportunity for me to improve on what I had originally envisaged for my project which was disc brakes and selectable 2WD via the LT230 conversion kit. Even with an off the shelf kit I’m still going to rebuild hubs with bearings, seals, gaskets etc so that will apply no matter which way I go even if I left both axles as standard. With regard to costs, for either the Heystee or Zeus kits I am still looking at the thick end of around £2.5k when you add in the cost of the LT230 conversion and as my TB and gearbox will both be reconditioned units, the money I will have spent on the TB work will be wasted if I then need to strip the centre diff down again to fit the conversion.
I accept that there will be costs for bespoke shafts and the additional risks that you highlight but in the event that my vehicle was disabled by a broken half shaft, then I’m fortunate enough to have access to another vehicle if I need it. As I work from home most of the time and then usually get a taxi to the airport for when I’m abroad on projects, my risk is mitigated even further to a personally acceptable level. In other words, I can manage my day to day life without needing my own car if needs be. If there is a way to reduce those costs then it’s a no brainier to me to at least try.
Time wise, unfortunately I have plenty of it as most of us do at the moment due to these very difficult conditions. From a personal point of view, if I wasn’t able to walk to the workshop every day and work on this project or sit and mull over how I can overcome some of the challenges in front of me, then I would be crawling up the bloody wall by now 🤯.
Even if I don’t end up doing anything to these axles and just leave them standard, having these discussions with you guys and trying to overcome the obstacles will have been good for me.
Anyway, there might be an alternative to all these now.....😉
-
1 hour ago, Gazzar said:
What, exactly, is the problem? The cost of doing to disks?
There isn’t a problem, I’m just looking at options for upgrading my brakes 🤷♂️
-
1 hour ago, Snagger said:
You won’t have any of those damper fouling issues with a coiler axle. You can use the 88” rear spring plates swapped over because you don’t have the swivel flange diameter to contend with.
MissingSid seems to have got a lot of the problems sorted with those collars, shaved diff and fabricated damper mounts, but you still need special shafts, which will be a real pain anytime you break one. Hopefully a rare event, but it’ll cost a lot more time and money to repair should it happen.
Obviously your choice, and I can see why you want to retain the standard look, but I think you’re barking up the wrong tree, adding complexity and cost for few advantages when a simpler mod gives more advantages at less cost.
But if I don’t like the look of the finished result then no matter how beneficial the mechanical side may be, I still won’t be happy with it.
-
1 hour ago, missingsid said:
This is weird with lockdown as I am not used to suck quick responces!!
A wider track by extending the spacer will increase the ability to turn the steering more but put more bolt risk in to the calculation. The sheer forces will be still managed by the spacer sleeves but the increased leng will increase the leverage to stretch the bolts.
Cheers. It wasn’t the steering lock I was after it was just about making sure the calliper was clear of the shock.
If I go this route I will also have someone make the spacer up for me and do the calcs.
I’m on with this project on a daily basis so always checking the forum for updates. Quick responses are always appreciated 👍
-
17 minutes ago, missingsid said:
More info behind my choice of 33mm for the spacer.
RRC hub face to axle flange is 225mm
Series hub face to axle flange is 258mm
Difference is 33mm
That makes sense now, cheers and the point about the steel quality and strength is well made too 👍
Are you using a vented disc and by how much is it catching on the shock? Is it just at the end of the steering lock?
If you went slightly deeper on the spacer say 40mm would that give you the clearance in the standard shock position?
-
4 hours ago, missingsid said:
For yor questions my spacer is actually 33 mm wide but is not enough to clear the shocks so I looked at different spring mount plates. The use of a rear spring plate had the shock hitting the axle. I ended up moving the shock pin to roughly half way between the front plate distance and the rear plate distance. You need to see what works for you.
That figure of 33mm is interesting as it’s quite a bit more than I would have liked to consider and, a fair bit thicker than others have used without the clash with the shock absorber.
Now that you moved the shock mounting point to the mid-distance has it removed the clash?
-
I also like the Heystee kit and it would be my preference but if it’s possible to graft on the coiler corners then it would also give me CVs and permanent 4WD so I would save a few hundred more on the LT230 2WD kit.
As I said, if it looks like there’s not much benefit to this then I’ll opt for a kit but it’s also interesting to explore and discuss this sort of thing.
-
20 minutes ago, Snagger said:
In all honesty, with what you have in mind there, I’d recommend you just bite the bullet and fit coiler axles outright. The rear end is really simple on a 109 and not much harder on an 88. The front is only a bit of a faff while you work out the shape to cut from the inboard face and contact face of the right spring saddle, and the height loss from the taller saddles really isn’t much, and can be largely mitigated by using long shackles on the front spring and rotating the saddles further around towards the front of the axle (so the diff pinion and steering axis remain the same as I have with matched chassis and shackle spec), just with the springs sloping down a bit more to give track rod clearance and drop the midpoint of the spring by the thick end of an inch. If I remember rightly, the saddles are only about 1/4-1/2” taller than the Series original saddles (I used the standard saddles on the back, transferred rom a scrap axle).
That way, you have no geometry issues, not tricky welding (just the saddles, bump stops and rear damper brackets), you get steering lock that gives a 109 about 2/3 the turning circle of a 90, CV joints, a bit more lateral stability without the penalties of offset rims or spacers, and front discs. Use a 300Tdi or later rear axle, and you get rear discs too. The only snag is 3.54 diffs, and I’m not going to bore everyone again with my view off those in a Series, but with a 200 or earlier front axle, that can be swapped straight over with your current diff, and the Salisbury rear diff is a pretty simple swap with the 109’s, whichever generation of 110 Salisbury you use.
The wheel track will be wider, but with standard LR rims, the tyres will not significantly extend beyond the wing panels - 1/2” for sidewall protrusion is what I’d expect at most, so it’ll look fine and won’t need spats.
I really don’t want to go down that road as, despite all the benefits you’ve mentioned, I personally just prefer the look of the standard track width on the series body and I also have wide wheels to start with which won’t help.
I’ve been out this morning and mocked up the series axle again that I had dismantled and also taken some measurements off the 110. I can see where the potential clash’s will be with the TCA and also the calliper and shock absorber but there’s nothing there that can’t be sorted out with some basic adjustments to heights and angles whilst keeping everything within an acceptable tolerance.
That said, this is still just a proposal that I am investigating and if it gets to the stage where I don’t think it will be safe or will adversely affect the performance of the vehicle then I will just stop and go for one of the off the shelf solutions. However, if for the sake of some additional work and effort I can save myself the best part of £2k then I’ll certainly try to do so.
-
1
-
-
I noted the mention of a clash between the calliper and the shock absorber in one of the old threads. The solution seemed to be to increase the thickness of the adapter to avoid this but there’s no mention of anyone actually doing it.
Anyone got any further info on this and what an optimum thickness would be?
I also read about people grinding off the lip on the axle flange. My thoughts are to keep this and machine the adapter to suit so it acts like a centralising spigot. Then do the same to the other side of the adapter to make a similar spigot for the swivel to locate on as per the original design.
-
2 hours ago, Snagger said:
You’ve missed the point. You can’t move the track rod on a given axle from front to rear or rear to front without reversing the Ackerman angle. You are right that LR didn’t optimise the angle for each wheelbase, as these are not precision handling sports cars, but reversed Ackerman is a very different thing that in my opinion is dangerous on a road going vehicle and should render it unroadworthy - it is forcing a tyre to skid every time you turn, and that is not acceptable on the road. What it does for a vehicle only used on private land is entirely a matter for the owner.
If you can find a way to correct the Ackerman problem with track rods up front, then great, but I don’t think I can be a done without altering the brake system - a track rod in front of the axle needs to be longer than the distance between swivel pin midpoints. How much depends on the length of the steering arms and wheel base (both are assumed by LR as one set value, and I’d wager they use 100” as the wheel base because these parts came from the RRC). A track rod behind the axle should be shorter than the distance between track rods.
On series axles, you can see the rod is longer and how relatively close the ends are to the brake back plate. On coiler axles, the arms are canted well inboard, and fitting bolt-on arms like the Series vehicles is limited by the position of the brake discs and shields - if you can move the brake disc out further and omit the shield, you may be able to restore correct Ackerman. But is it worth all that trouble just to fit disc brakes, which would no longer be standard, if a kit like Zeus or Heystee is ready to go off the shelf, with their testing and certification?
I agree, I don’t want to be messing about too much with steering geometry.
As I understand it now, by retaining the series axle case and the leaf springs, I will maintain the correct castor angle of 3 degrees for a leaf sprung vehicle. That said, a slight increase in castor may help with the front prop shaft angle and avoid the need for wide angle yokes.
The adapter (25mm?) between the two flanges will allow the swivel to bolt to the axle case and also restore the overall axle width to the correct series dimensions. To avoid machining of half shafts I can have new inner ones made to the correct length or, if they’re still available, find a long spline shaft and cut it down. Using the corners from a RRC with their 6 bolt pattern would be easier than the 7 bolt pattern.
A clash may (probably) will occur between the diff pinion and/or the leaf springs and the TCA but if this does happen then using lowering blocks or altering the angle of the diff slightly upwards may address those issues without compromising on handling. This may end up being a case of trial and error. Extended shackles may or may not be required.
Im not overly concerned about lowering the height of the vehicle as the parabolics have increased the height by around 2” from standard anyway and so I can afford to pinch some of that in favour of improved clearances.
I could retain the drag link and TCA from the series but one option may be to use a shortened TCA off a front Salisbury axle as these already seem to have the bends in them to clear the diff.
Have I understood all this correctly or overlooked something?
-
Thanks for all the feedback and links to past information chaps. Lots to read and re-read and I’m still digesting it all but for the minute can I just check that I have understood some key points for now?
If it was possible, and I know it isn’t, to bolt a coil corner to a leaf axle casing, then the resultant track width would be narrower than the standard series axle width?
With respect to the track control bar at the rear of the coiler axle, this will clash with the pinion of the diff, the leaf springs or both?
-
21 minutes ago, Wytze said:
Get some used bits, and start playing around with a setup that you desire. Keep strenght in mind.
Just thinking out loud here, when a half shaft goes.. Most of the time it's a short one, am i right? Why not take two coiler axles and shorten them on the long axle tube? That way you only need two bespoke halfshafts
I’m going to get some quotes for new half shafts but to be honest, by time I’ve paid someone to properly cut and shut an existing half shaft I can probably just buy a new one.
-
25 minutes ago, Snagger said:
The axle tubes are longer and the diff housings are set further to the right. I have been told the right hand side shaft lengths are the same as on Series axles. I suspect that’s not accurate, but they wouldn’t be far off.
This actually determines the height of the spring saddles if you fit them to a leaf sprung vehicle, both 88 and 109 on the front axle and both axles on an 88 (due to the different spring positions on the 109 rear end, the 110 diff housing clears the suspension springs and the bump stop cast into the Salisbury diff is in the correct place).
The cooler front axles have an inclined diff. The track rod passes underneath and initially looks like it may be a defining requirement for the spring saddles to keep it clear of the tops of the springs. However, because the diff is sited so much further to the right, the diff housing has to be recessed into the right spring saddle, and with the swivel pin castor angle at the correct 3 degrees (as per Series axles and all Defender, RRC and Discovery 1 models), with the diff housing just exposed at the inboard edge of the saddle, so the saddle face is flush with the neck of the diff housing where they meet, you have minimum height saddles but good track rod clearance.
It would be possible swap or modify axle flanges to swap swivel housings, but that brings in all sorts of use with steering rods, if you’re putting Defender swivels on a Series axle - the diff will be in the way of the track rod. Fitting a track rod up front in that scenario has been done by using LHD and RHD near side swivels to have arms up front and then connecting the drag link to the track rod, but that reverses Ackerman angles and is rubbish.
I’m a little confused here. How will the track rod interfere with the diff as it will pass under it as in this picture won’t it? I can see that the track rod may clash with the leaf spring but that can be addressed with suitable spacers I believe.
My thoughts are to weld up the series axle flanges and have them re-drilled to suit the coil hub assembly bolt pattern with the correct diff nose inclination. I could then get a new, shorter inner half shaft made for each side that would allow me to use the standard Defender or Disco 1 brake set up and more importantly, retain the CV joints for permanent 4WD.
Fo the rear axle I would fit the stub axle flange in the same way along with the rear disc brake assembly and have shorter half shafts made up.
I’m not sure if I’ve missed something but thoughts and opinions on the proposal are very welcome.
-
4 minutes ago, Snagger said:
I installed a 110 Salisbury axle on my 109, but it was an early version from a pre-Defender model. I installed discs on it using 90/110 front hubs, D110 discs, Discovery callipers, the 300Tdi calliper brackets and a mix and match of spacer washers between wheel bearing and hub nut. It works very well.
That was for the rear axle?
-
Does anyone know if the front half shafts on a coil axle are tapered like the series ones or straight between the splined sections?
Edit: forget that, what I really need to know is the width of a coil axle case between the flanges if anyone has a case knocking about that they could measure please?
-
I’m also investigating alternatives to a conversion kit...
-
11 minutes ago, Snagger said:
Second hand hubs would be cheap. It’s not common to make them unusable - I can see how a seize bearing could spin a race or an over tightened wheel nut could pull a stud too hard and crack the hub flange, it that’s about it.
I think the Zeus kit uses, it at least used to use discs that fit over the hub like on P38 and D2, so you don’t need to take the hub off to replace discs. In fairness, discs don’t wear out that fast in most uses, and it prompts a worthwhile inspection and service of bearings and hub seal too, so it’s only a small benefit of the Zeus over the Heystee kit.
I have been impressed with both companies. The Zeus stainless pistons were so good for my RRC that I got another set for my 109 when I did the axles and disc conversion on that without the slightest doubt. My Heystee springs have stood the test of time really well, though one spring did crack a spring eye after over a decade In regular use, which Paul Heystee reckoned was down to fatigue from a slightly oversized batch of bushes they had when my springs were made, and he sent a replacement leaf straight out even though all those years had passed. Since then, I’ve had no trouble with them at all and they have retained their camber and ride height for about 20 yearS with no lean.
On mine it looks like the race has spun.
-
Mine are ANR1534
-
Although looking at the flange on the series axle there’s plenty of space between the bolts so it might turn out that most of the holes for the coil swivel flange can be redrilled with just the odd one needing to be filled with weld beforehand. I won’t know until I get a coil swivel flange to compare it with.
V8 Inlet Manifold Fitting
in International Forum
Posted
Does anyone know if it’s possible to replace this coolant fitting that feeds the throttle housing on the Thor engine? Mine is well crusty.